Challenges of school board members in
supporting quality education in Ohangwena
rural schools in Namibia
Teopolina Kayumbu
26740613
Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Magister Educationis
in Education Management
at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University
Supervisor:
Prof J. Heystek
Co-supervisor:
Dr D. Nkengbeza
DECLARATION
I the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this dissertation/ thesis is my own original work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it at any university for a degree.
18 October 2016
Copyright © 2017 North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus) All rights reserved
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to thank the Almighty God for everything and for granting me the chance to go for further study, may his name be glorified.
Secondly, I would like to thank the Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, Ohangwena Educational Region, school board and staff members of Josef Shifeta Primary School for allowing me to go for further studies on full-time basis, please continue to do this to other fellow teachers.
Thirdly, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof J. Heystek and co-supervisor, Dr D. Nkengbeza, and Dr G. Shava and Dr M. Katewa for their guidance throughout this research. Their patience has helped me to be able to complete this study.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my lovely husband Johannes for taking good care of the family while I was on study leave. I don’t want to forget Ndessy and Ndatala for taking good care of my children, Senior and Helao. My mother and mother-in-law, Olivia, Helvi, Lelly, Letty and Fessy for motivation and words of encouragement. How can I live without you guys?
To the following family for everything they did to our family during that period; the Nanghonda family, Namwoonde family, Kayumbu Ireneus family, Hashipala family and Shimhanda family. May the Almighty God bless you abundantly.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my children, Senior Tonateni Tuulikefo, Helao Nghipangwa and Immanuel Twaitavela Kayumbu.
ABSTRACT
School governance became one of the main concerns in supporting quality education in Namibian schools. Soon after independence, the new Namibian government realised that it is important for all stakeholders in education to participate equally and actively in governing their local schools, and introduced a policy on decentralisation and democratic school governance.
The Namibian Education Act (NEA) (Act 16 of 2001) makes provision that school boards can be established in all Namibian state schools. The logic behind the establishment of school boards in Namibian state schools was to address inequalities and discrimination regarding the provision of quality education that occurred before independence. Another aim was to decentralise decision-making processes, transferring authority and distributing resources from the national level to school level.
The aim of the study was to investigate the perceptions of school board members and non-school board members regarding the challenges of school board members in supporting quality education in Ohangwena rural schools in Namibia. A qualitative research paradigm was used in this study. In-depth interviews were conducted to collect data from 18 participants from four selected schools so that an in-depth understanding could be obtained about the challenges faced by school board members.
The major findings largely confirmed previous studies’ findings in the Namibian and South African contexts. Findings revealed that school board members experience numerous challenges, such as poor understanding of their (school board members’) powers and functions; poor training of school board members; a lack of knowledge and skills; and the need for remuneration for parent school board members as a token of motivation and appreciation.
The recommendations were made based on empirical findings, and emphasise the importance of continuous training of school board members (before and after start their duties) and the extension of their serving terms. It is further recommended that the NEA, specifically the specialised functions of school board members, be reviewed and translated to the local languages. The research further recommended that parent school board members always be given a sitting allowance after meetings.
OPSOMMING
Skoolbeheer het een van die grootste bekommernisse geword in die ondersteuning van gehalte-onderwys in Namibiese skole. Die nuwe Namibiese regering het kort ná onafhanklikheid besef dat dit belangrik is dat alle belanghebbendes in onderwys gelyk en aktief deelneem aan die beheer van hulle plaaslike skole, en daarna het hulle ʼn gedesentraliseerde en demokratiese skoolbeheerbeleid bekendgestel.
Die Namibiese Onderwyswet (Wet 16 van 2001) maak voorsiening dat skoolrade in alle Namibiese skole op die been gebring kan word. Die logika agter die stigting van skoolrade in Namibiese staatskole was om die ongelykhede en diskriminasie in die voorsiening van gehalte-onderwys wat voor onafhanklikheid voorgekom het, aan te pak. ʼn Ander doelwit was om besluitnemingsprosesse te desentraliseer, outoriteit oor te dra en hulpbronne te versprei vanaf die nasionale vlak tot skoolvlak.
Die doel van hierdie studie was om die persepsies van skoolraadslede en nie-skoolraadslede te bepaal aangaande die uitdagings wat skoolraadslede ervaar in hulle ondersteuning van gehalte-onderwys in Ohangwena plattelandse skole in Namibië. ʼn Kwalitatiewe navorsingsparadigma is in die studie gebruik. Indiepte-onderhoude is gevoer om data van 18 deelnemers van vier gekose skole in te samel sodat ʼn indiepte-begrip verkry kon word oor die uitdagings wat skoolraadslede ervaar.
Die vernaamste bevindinge is in ooreenstemming met voorafgaande studies in die Namibiese en Suid-Afrikaanse kontekste. Die bevindinge het getoon dat skoolraadslede talle uitdagings ervaar, soos ʼn swak begrip rakende hulle magte en funksies; swak opleiding van skoolraadslede; ʼn gebrek aan kennis en vaardighede; en die behoefte aan vergoeding vir ouerlede van die skoolraad as teken van motivering en waardering.
Die aanbevelings is op empiriese bevindinge gebaseer en beklemtoon die belangrikheid van deurlopende opleiding van skoolraadslede (voor en ná hulle hul pligte onderneem) sowel as die verlenging van hulle dienstydperke. Daar word voorts voorgestel dat die Namibiese Onderwyswet, spesifiek die gespesialiseerde funksies van skoolraadslede, hersien en vertaal word na die plaaslike tale. Die navorsing het voorts aanbeveel dat sittende ouerlede van die skoolraad altyd ná vergaderings van ʼn toelaag voorsien word.
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CCP: Cluster Centre Principals CMC: Circuit Management Committee CSBA: California School Board Association DoE: Department of Education
EFA: Education for All
EMIS: Educational Management Information System Statistics ETSIP: Education Training Sector Improvement Programme FEDSAS Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools
HOD: Head of Department
IoE: Inspector of Education IOL: Institute of Open Learning IToP: Invitational Theory of Practice LRC: Learner Representative Council
MBESC: Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture MCA: Millennium Challenge Account
MDG: Millennium Development Goals
MEAC: Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture MoE: Ministry of Education
NEA: Namibian Education Act (Act 16 of 2001) NSBET: non-school board experienced teacher NSFP: Namibia School Feeding Programme
NSPI: National Standard and Performance Indicators OVC: orphans and vulnerable children
PS: Permanent Secretary
SACMEQ: The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality
SASA: South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996) SBCs: school board chairpersons
SBS: school board secretaries
SDAs: School Development Associations SDCs: School Development Committees SDF: School Development Fund
SDP: School Development Plan SGBs: school governing bodies SMT: school management team SSE: school self-evaluation
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund
UPE: Universal Primary Education USA: United States of America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ii
DEDICATION ... iii
ABSTRACT ... iv
OPSOMMING ... v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ... xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY ... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.2 ORIENTATION of THE STUDY ... 1
1.3 CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMS ... 3
1.3.1 Power ... 3
1.3.2 Governance ... 3
1.3.3 Quality education ... 3
1.3.4 School board... 3
1.4 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ... 4
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 5
1.5.1 Primary research question ... 5
1.5.2 Secondary research questions ... 5
1.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ... 6
1.7 LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ... 6
1.8 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY ... 7
1.9 CHAPTER OUTLINE ... 8
1.10 SUMMARY ... 8
CHAPTER 2: SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 9
2.1 INTRODUCTION ... 9
2.2 DISCUSSION OF TERMS UNDERLYING THE RESEARCH ... 9
2.2.1 Quality education ... 9
2.2.2 Decentralisation of school governance... 11
2.2.3 Democratisation of school governance ... 13
2.3 SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN NAMIBIA ... 15
2.3.2 School governance in Namibia in a democratic era ... 17
2.3.3 The legal framework of school boards in Namibia ... 18
2.3.4 The election of school board members ... 18
2.3.5 The composition of school boards ... 19
2.3.6 School board members’ terms in the office ... 20
2.3.7 Powers and functions of school board members ... 20
2.3.8 Learners’ participation in school governance in Namibia ... 20
2.3.9 Effective participation of school board members ... 23
2.3.9.1 Policy development ... 24
2.3.9.2 Recommendation and appointment of staff members ... 25
2.3.9.3 Developing school infrastructure and promoting school welfare ... 25
2.3.9.4 Financial management... 26
2.3.9.5 Budgeting and the purchasing of school needs ... 28
2.4 SCHOOL GOVERNANCE in DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WALES, ENGLAND, AND USA) ... 29 2.4.1 School governance in Wales and England ... 30
2.4.2 School governance in the United States of America ... 30
2.5 SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN South Africa and zimbabwe ... 31
2.5.1 School governance in South Africa ... 31
2.5.2 School governance in Zimbabwe ... 32
2.6 CHALLENGES FACED BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS IN GENERAL ... 33
2.7 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK UNDERPINNING THE STUDY ... 35
2.7.1 Invitational Theory of Practice (IToP) ... 36
2.7.1.1 Trust, respect and co-operation ... 39
2.7.1.2 Power-sharing ... 41
2.7.1.3 Effective communication and good relationship ... 42
2.7.1.4 School board members’ competencies to perform their functions ... 44
2.8 SUMMARY ... 45
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ... 46
3.1 INTRODUCTION ... 46
3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM ... 46
3.2.1 Social constructivism ... 46
3.2.2 Interpretivism ... 47
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 48
3.3.1 Qualitative research design ... 48
3.4.1 Background of Ohangwena rural areas ... 49
3.4.2 Context of selected schools ... 51
3.5 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS ... 53
3.6 PILOT STUDY ... 53
3.7 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES ... 54
3.7.1 Semi-structured interviews ... 54
3.8 Data analysis ... 55
3.8.1 Thematic data analysis ... 55
3.9 CREDIBILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS... 56
3.9.1 Triangulation ... 57
3.9.2 Data verification ... 57
3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 58
3.11 SUMMARY ... 59
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF THE DATA AND FINDINGS ... 60
4.1 INTRODUCTION ... 60
4.2 DATA PRESENTATION ... 60
4.3 THEME 1: FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ... 63
4.3.1 Functions performed effectively by school board members ... 63
4.3.1.1 Recommendation and appointment of staff members ... 64
4.3.1.2 Development of school infrastructure ... 69
4.3.1.3 Promoting school welfare ... 71
4.3.1.4 Links with parents and the community ... 72
4.3.2 Functions not performed effectively by school board members ... 74
4.3.2.1 School policy development ... 74
4.3.2.2 Curriculum assessment ... 76
4.3.2.3 Financial management... 77
4.3.2.3.1 School board members’ involvement in budgeting ... 78
4.3.2.3.2 School board members’ involvement in purchasing school needs ... 81
4.4 THEME 2: HUMAN ACTIONS, INTERACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS... 83
4.4.1 Trust, respect and co-operation ... 84
4.4.1.1 Trust ... 84
4.4.1.2 Respect ... 87
4.4.1.3 Co-operation ... 88
4.4.2 Power-sharing ... 90
4.4.2.1 Parents’ involvement in decision-making ... 93
4.4.3 Effective communication and a good relationship ... 99
4.4.3.1 School board meetings ... 102
4.4.3.2 School board invitations to their meetings ... 103
4.4.3.3 School boards’ attendance to their meetings ... 104
4.4.4 School board competencies to perform their functions ... 105
4.5 THEME 3: CHALLENGES FACED BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS... 110
4.5.1 Remuneration as a token of appreciation and motivation ... 110
4.5.2 Proper training for school board members ... 112
4.5.3 School board members’ serving terms ... 112
4.5.4 Criticism of school board members ... 113
4.5.5 Fear, isolation and rejection of school board members ... 115
4.5.6 Parent school board members’ educational level ... 116
4.5.7 Distance ... 117
4.5.8 Old age ... 118
4.5.9 Personal challenges... 118
4.5.10 School board members’ attendance to their meetings ... 119
4.5.11 School management teams’ (SMTs) support ... 119
4.5.12 School board election ... 120
4.5.13 Education Act ... 120
4.5.14 Learner school board members’ fears and threats... 121
4.6 THEME 4: WAYS TO OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES FACED BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS... 122
4.6.1 Remuneration as a token of appreciation and motivation ... 123
4.6.2 Proper training for school board members ... 123
4.6.3 School board members’ serving term ... 124
4.6.4 Criticism, isolation and rejection of school board members ... 125
4.6.5 Educational level of parent school board members ... 125
4.6.6 Distance and school board members’ attendance to their meetings ... 126
4.6.7 Old age ... 126
4.6.8 Personal challenges... 127
4.6.9 School management team’s (SMT’s) support... 127
4.6.10 School board members’ election ... 127
4.6.11 The Education Act ... 128
4.6.12 Learner school board members’ challenges ... 128
4.7 SUMMARY ... 129
CHAPTER 5: DATA INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ... 130
5.2 DATA INTERPRETATION ... 130
5.3 THEMATIC INTERPRETATION... 131
5.3.1 Trust, respect and co-operation among school board members ... 131
5.3.1.1 The Education Act ... 133
5.3.2 Effective communication and a good relationship among school board members ... 134
5.3.2.1 School board meetings and remuneration as a token of motivation and appreciation ... ... 135
5.3.3 Power-sharing among school board members and learners’ involvement in school governance ... 136
5.3.3.1 School board members’ equal participation in decision-making ... 137
5.3.3.2 School policy development ... 137
5.3.3.3 Curriculum assessment ... 138
5.3.3.4 The promotion of school welfare ... 138
5.3.3.5 School financial management ... 139
5.3.3.6 Participation in the decision-making process ... 140
5.3.4 School board members’ competencies and abilities to perform their functions ... 142
5.3.4.1 Training ... 142
5.4 SUMMARY ... 144
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 145
6.1 INTRODUCTION ... 145
6.2 CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY ... 145
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 147
6.3.1 Recommendations for the Ohangwena educational region ... 147
6.3.2 Recommendations for the Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture (MEAC) ... 148
6.3.3 Recommendations for future researches ... 148
6.4 SUMMARY ... 149
LIST OF REFERENCES ... 150
APPENDIX A: ETHICS CERTIFICATE ... 157
APPENDIX B: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN
OHANGWENA RURAL SCHOOLS ... 158
APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH ... 160
APPENDIX D: LETTER OF CONSENT ... 161
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTORS OF EDUCATION ... 167
APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR NON-SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Table to determine the number of school board members ... 19
Table 4.1: The composition of selected schools ... 61
Table 4.2: Participants and their gender ... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Aspects that promote democracy in active school governance (Sinalumbu, 2013) ... 13
Figure 2.2: Invitational Theory of Practice (IToP) ... 36
Figure 2.3: Five P’s mechanism of a school according to the IToP ... 37
Figure 2.4: Conceptual framework of school governance ... 39
Figure 3.1: The map of Namibia and its political and educational regions as of 2015 source: www.mapsofworld.com (Maps of World, 2002-2016) ... 49
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
1.1
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the orientation of the study will firstly be discussed. Key concepts used in this research will be clarified, and the background and rationale of the study will be provided. The research questions and aims of this study will also be identified. The limitations and delimitations of the study as well as the contributions of the research will further be discussed. This chapter will be concluded with a chapter outline.
The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of school board members and non-school board members regarding the challenges faced by school board members in supporting quality education in four selected rural combined schools in the Ohangwena Region, Namibia. Data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions. The in-depth data were used to create themes, which will appear in the presentation of the findings and discussion of this study (Chapters 4 and 5). In addition, the detailed data were also used to answer the research questions and to secure the conceptual framework that underpinned this study.
1.2
ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
Soon after independence, the issue of decentralisation and democratisation of school governance was introduced in the Namibian education system in 1993. The Namibian government recognised that it is essential for all stakeholders in education ‒ such as parents, teachers, principals and learners, and their communities at large ‒ to work together in the governance of their local schools (Smith, 2012). The Namibian government therefore introduced an Education for All (EFA) policy in its education system. The EFA policy came along with several changes, and one of them was the decentralisation and democratisation of school governance through the establishment of compulsory school boards in all Namibian state schools (Shanyanana, 2011). Kandumbu (2005) agrees that the introduction of the EFA policy transformed the philosophy of the Namibian education system to support quality education. The policy created an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate equally and democratically in their children’s education and local schools’ governance (Smith, 2012).
Nowadays, schools are no longer operating in isolation like in the past during the apartheid regime, but they are working in collaboration with communities they serve (Botha, 2013). Parents, teachers, learners and community members are therefore in the best position to realise their local schools’ needs (Smith, 2012) and understand all the challenges that are faced by their local schools (Xaba, 2011). Sesane (2014) affirms that local stakeholders are at the greatest level to find solutions to all
challenges that are facing their schools in order to support quality education.
According to the Ministry of Education (MoE) (2008), there are seven major goals of the EFA policy, namely access, equity, democracy, justice, democratic participation, respect for human dignity, and lifelong learning. Furthermore, the Namibian Education Act (NEA) (Act 16 of 2001) and regulations made under section 16 (1‒2) of this Act prescribe that:
Every state school must establish a school board to administer the affairs and to promote the development of the school, and the minister must establish a program with the aim and to promote accountability of, active participation, effective exercise of power and performance of functions by members of the school board (NEA, 2001).
The NEA (2001) also clearly prescribes powers and functions of school board members, such as to develop the mission and vision and goals and objectives of their school, and to advise the school’s management on the extramural curriculum of the school. Furthermore, the NEA empowers school board members to guide the regional Director of Education on the curriculum and educational needs of their schools.
It further authorises school board members to attend interviews and to make recommendations to the Permanent Secretary (PS) on the appointment and recruitment of all staff members at their schools. In addition, school board members are legally permitted to develop and improve their school’s infrastructure, and to allow the community to reasonably utilise school facilities (NEA, 2001).
The NEA also permits school board members to discuss and to decide on all cases of misconduct by learners and staff members at their schools. School board members are legally allowed to make sure that misconduct is properly examined. School board members are also authorised to make recommendations to the PS for appropriate action to be taken regarding the serious misconduct of learners and staff members at their local schools.
Finally, the NEA tasks school board members with a general responsibility of exercising other powers and performing other functions under the Education Act. Therefore, as stated by Xaba (2011), the overall functions of school board members are to promote the interests of learners and to strive to support the provision of quality education to all learners.
1.3
CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used in this study and will be defined in the context in which they are used in this research.
1.3.1 Power
The term power in this study is defined as the legal authority given to a local board of parents, teachers and learners at a school, which is termed a school board. According to Joubert and Bray (2007), this board is legally empowered by the NEA to govern their local schools and to support the provision of quality education equally to all learners. Joubert and Bray (2007) further state that power in this context entails school board members’ abilities and skills that originate from an assortment of sources ‒ such as legal and cultural norms, beliefs, values and socio-economic rules ‒ to perform their powers and functions, and to get other stakeholders to do what they are requested to do.
1.3.2 Governance
Governance in this research refers to the powers entrusted to school board members to work together with the school management team (SMT) to govern and manage their local schools to support quality education at their respective schools. It also refers to the structure in which school board members develop and implement their school policies and make decisions that will not interrupt their school finance and the provision of quality education to their communities (Crouch & Winkler, 2008).
1.3.3 Quality education
In this study, quality education refers to education provided to the learners that will enable and empower them to contribute to their democratic societies. It also refers to education that will support learners to develop all characteristics and skills that will assist them to achieve their full potential as human beings from childhood to adulthood (Zhang, 2010).
1.3.4 School board
The school board in this context is referred to as the highest decision-making body, which consists of parents, teachers and learners who are responsible and accountable for the overall school governance at their local level (Sinalumbu, 2013). According to the MoE (2008), school board members work together with other authorities in the Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture (MEAC) at cluster, circuit, regional and national levels to make sure that quality education is equally provided to all learners at their specific schools.
1.4
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
Ever since Namibia got its independence in 1990, the Namibian government has been placing quality education at the highest position of its national priorities and the largest portion of its budget always goes to education. The Namibian government regards education as a right for every citizen and key to a better life, as specified in Article 20 of the Namibian constitution (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1990) on rights to education.
Furthermore, the Namibian government has made education compulsory from pre-primary grade (previously known as grade 0) to grade 7 so that all learners can get the chance to acquire basic skills. In 2012, the Namibian government also introduced free primary education in its education system, which caters for the teaching and learning materials of all learners in state schools.
In 2016, free secondary education was also introduced in the Namibian education system. Moreover, the NEA (2001) empowered school board members to govern their local schools on behalf of other educational stakeholders to control its school finance and to ensure that learners are provided with quality education (MoE, 2008).
The Ohangwena Region, where the researcher carried out this study, is one of 14 political and educational regions in Namibia. It lies in the northern rural part of Namibia and borders Angola. According to the Educational Management Information System Statistics (EMIS), there are 249 schools (MoE, 2012) and all of these schools have legally established their school boards in accordance with the NEA.
Based on the researcher’s background and experience as a school principal and a member of the Circuit Management Committee (CMC) in the Endola circuit in the Ohangwena Region, she (the researcher) was aware that some school board committees in their region were not effective and therefore they did not support the provision of quality education efficiently.
Moreover, according to several researchers’ views on school governance (e.g. Joubert & Bray, 2007; Shekupakela-Nelulu, 2008; Xaba, 2011; Sinalumbu, 2013; Khama, 2014), school board members were not aware of their core functions in school governance. According to the MoE (2008), parents in Namibian rural schools were not fully involved in their children’s education as well as school governance. Shekupakela-Nelulu (2008) and Khama (2014) further claim that there was a lack of participation of parent and learner school board members in policy development.
In his findings, Mestry (2006) indicates that some school board members and school principals have little knowledge on the Education Act or simply interpret it incorrectly, which result in many schools experiencing financial mismanagement. Shumane (2009) claims that a lack of education and limited
access to information and resources were some of the barriers that hindered parent school board members’ ability to perform their functions effectively as prescribed by the Education Act. Shumane further stresses that power-sharing, absenteeism of parents at their school board meetings and a lack of training of school board members were some of the obstacles that prevented school board members to execute their functions in supporting quality education.
Researchers (e.g. Heystek, Niemann, Van Rooyen, Mosoge, & Bipath, 2008; Sinalumbu, 2013; Heystek, 2014; Khama, 2014) agree that parents in the school board were not participating democratically in decision-making processes, while learner school board members were not involved in decision-making regarding sensitive matters relating to staff members’ behaviours. Findings also indicate that there were no mutual trust, respect and co-operation among school board members (Heystek et al., 2008; Sinalumbu, 2013; Heystek, 2014; Khama, 2014). In addition, these researchers indicate that school principals, teachers, parents and learners who made up school board committees, all had their own challenges.
Many researchers from Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries (e.g. Joubert & Bray, 2007; Chikoko, 2008; Xaba, 2011; Botha, 2013; Heystek, 2014) have published on school governance, but only a few researchers have written about school governance from the Namibian perspective. The researcher therefore decided to carry out this study in Namibia, specifically in the Ohangwena Region. Other researchers had previously conducted similar studies in countries like South Africa (e.g. Nong, 2007; Kumalo, 2009; Mabovula, 2009; Mncube, 2009, 2012; Xaba, 2011; Botha, 2013; Heystek, 2014) and Zimbabwe (e.g. Chikoko, 2008; Tshabalala, 2013), and recommended that further research be done in these areas. However, such research was not conducted in Namibia, specifically in rural schools in the Ohangwena Region.
1.5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.5.1 Primary research question
The question this study attempted to answer was:
What are the challenges faced by school board members in supporting quality education in Ohangwena rural schools in Namibia?
1.5.2 Secondary research questions
a) Which functions are performed effectively by school board members in accordance with the NEA in the provision of quality education?
quality education?
c) What are the possible ways to address the challenges experienced by school board members?
1.6
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The overall aim of this study was to investigate the challenges faced by school board members in supporting quality education in Ohangwena rural schools in Namibia.
The objectives were:
a) to investigate the functions that are performed effectively by the school board members in accordance with the NEA in the provision of quality education at their schools;
b) to find out if the school board members can perform the prescribed functions to support quality education at their respective schools;
c) to find possible ways on how to address the challenges experienced by the school board members in efforts to support quality education.
1.7
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study strictly focused on investigating the challenges faced by school board members in supporting quality education. It was restricted to four selected rural combined schools in the Ohangwena Region. Four schools were selected and the participants were limited to eighteen. Therefore, the results obtained from this research are strictly limited to the four selected rural combined schools in the Ohangwena Region and cannot be generalised to other schools and regions in or outside of Namibia.
According to Shumane (2009), no study is perfect or faultless. Shumane further emphasises that 90% of researchers experience problems during their data-gathering processes. In this study, the number of participants were suitable for this research. Most of the participants were rich in the information needed, except for one participant, who was a newly elected, inexperienced school board member chairperson at the school. This happened because all Namibian state schools were electing new school board members between June and July 2015 ‒ the same time in which the researcher was collecting data. The situation therefore forced the researcher to interview outgoing school board members, such as school board chairpersons and school board secretaries. However, at School 4, the former school board chairperson was not around and all other former parent school board members were not readily available. Therefore, the researcher interviewed a newly elected school board chairperson.
Inspectors of Education (IoEs), were full-time employees. Consequently, it was not easy for the researcher to get hold of them, since they were fully occupied with their normal work. Thus, the researcher almost spent a month in order to collect data from all 18 participants.
Five out of the 18 participants opted to be interviewed in their vernacular, namely Oshiwambo. These participants were all school board chairpersons (parents) and one experienced teacher. Due to this fact, the researcher personally translated and transcribed all five interviews to English, and asked a colleague who is fluent in both languages (i.e. English and Oshiwambo) to edit the translations. According to Hamutenya (2013), translation from a local vernacular to an official language has its own weaknesses, which might weaken the quality of the data gathered. In this study, the translation of interviews from Oshiwambo to English took up much of the researcher’s time and might also have weakened the value and quality of the data.
Moreover, some participants were not comfortable with the use of a tape recorder, especially when they had to share crucial information that exposed the bad image of their school board members. There is therefore a possibility of bias in some participants’ responses. However, the researcher had explained the purpose of the study clearly to all participants so as to minimise the limitations before actual interviews were carried out.
Besides the abovementioned concerns, a lack of literature and publication on school governance in the Namibian context, especially in the Ohangwena Region, limited the literature reviewed in this study at local level. Lastly, the findings may contribute to other existing literature on school governance in the Namibian context, particularly in rural schools in the Ohangwena Region.
1.8
CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
In this study, the challenges of school board members in supporting quality education in rural combined schools in the Ohangwena Region were investigated. It is vital as the researcher sought to understand the functions performed effectively by school board members in accordance with the NEA in the provision of quality education. The researcher also sought to find out if school board members could perform the prescribed functions to support quality education at their respective schools. The researcher further wanted to discover the causes of challenges faced by school board members when performing their functions and possible ways on how to address those challenges to support quality education.
The outcome of this study will benefit school board members in rural schools of the Ohangwena Region to develop new knowledge, skills and understanding on their powers and functions as prescribed by the NEA, and to overcome challenges when executing their function to support quality education. Finally, this study might help school board members to perform their functions effectively
in support of quality education in rural schools, which is a core purpose of the Namibian education system.
1.9
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Besides chapter 1, in which the introduction and a brief orientation of the research were provided, the rest of the dissertation will be outlined as follows:
Chapter 2: The conceptual framework underpinning this study is presented. Literature on school governance and the challenges of school board members in Africa and developed countries are also reviewed;
Chapter 3: The research design, the research paradigm and methodologies utilised in the empirical study are discussed;
Chapter 4: The findings and presentation of the data are presented;
Chapter 5: A discussion and interpretation of the findings of this study are provided; and Chapter 6: An overview of the whole study is provided. Major findings of the research are
discussed and suggestions and recommendations for future researches are offered.
1.10 SUMMARY
In this chapter, the background and rationale of the study were outlined. The key terms used in this research were also clarified. The research questions and the aims of the research were presented. The next chapter will provide the literature review and conceptual framework that underpinned this study.
CHAPTER 2
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will focus on the literature review and conceptual framework that guided this study. The terms “quality education”, “decentralisation” and “democratic school governance” will be discussed. Different researchers’ views on school governance, worldwide, nationally and locally, will be presented. The school governance in Namibia’s pre- and post-democratic era will also be discussed. This chapter will also shed light on the background of school boards in Namibia. Lastly, the challenges faced by school board members in supporting quality education and the ways in which those challenges can be addressed will be emphasised.
2.2
DISCUSSION OF TERMS UNDERLYING THE RESEARCH
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010), a literature review is defined as a theoretical or conceptual framework. It can also be defined as the previous research findings concerning the problem at hand (Maree & Van der Westhuizen, 2014). Researchers use a literature review as an instrument (Mouton, 2014) with the purpose of providing the content of the study by looking at other work that has already been done in the same subject area (Mertler, 2012). In this study, the literature was reviewed as a method of learning, exploring and discovering the existing writings, and to decide on and conclude what has been written and published by other researchers (Maree & Van der Westhuizen, 2014) on the challenges of school board members in supporting quality education.
2.2.1 Quality education
The term “quality” was originally taken from a Latin word “quails”, which means “a kind of” (Zhang, 2010). From the Namibian perspective, quality is one of the four goals of the EFA in Namibia to ensure that quality education is provided equally to all citizens. Other three goals of the EFA are access, equity and democracy (MoE, 2008).
According to Shinana (2013), education is an essential aspect of the human’s life. Furthermore, the Namibian Institute of Open Learning’s (IOL) (2012) slogan indicates that: “Education is the greatest equaliser”.
Moreover, Zhang (2010) defines quality education as an education that empowers learners to contribute to their democratic societies. Zhang also indicates that quality education enables learners to develop all characteristics and skills that will help them to achieve their full potential as human
beings.
According to the MoE (2008), quality education offers all learners the necessary skills and abilities to develop and to become economically productive. Hailombe (2011) states that the provision of quality education in schools involves the delivery of basic educational programmes, teaching and learning materials as well as facilities. In addition, according to Zhang (2010), in order to provide quality education and for the learners to achieve high standards, competence and experience of teachers are required.
The EFA (2005) in the Global Monitoring Report emphasises that:
Access to quality education is one of the rights of every child and should be at the midpoint of education. Quality education regulates how teachers are presenting their lessons, how much learners are learning at school and the knowledge they are acquiring through the teaching and learning process, how well learners are learning and the degree to which their education will be converted into a diversity of personal, social and developmental benefits.
Shober and Hartney (2014) assert that school board members have a very important role to play in supporting quality education. Similarly, Male and Palaiologou (2012, p. 12) mention that:
Effective education settings are those which have developed productive and synergistic relationships between learners, families, the team and the community, because the context, locality and culture in which learners live are vitally important.
According to the NEA of 2001, school board members are empowered to develop the mission, vision and policies of their local schools to ensure the provision of quality education in their respective schools. Furthermore, school board members are authorised to recommend staff members to be appointed by the PS at their local school. They are permitted to control their school finances to purchase teaching and learning materials and other school needs. School board members are also empowered to control and oversee the development and improvement of their local school’s infrastructure, to promote their school’s welfare, and to link with parents and the community at large (NEA, 2001).
However, for the school board members to support quality education effectively, they need to create a conducive teaching and learning environment with sufficient and competent staff members (Shober & Hartney, 2014). School board members also need to make sure that the number of learners per class are appropriate and that teachers are qualified.
Hailombe (2011) indicates that school board members must make sure that there are adequate teaching and learning materials, and sufficient teaching and learning time. A conducive teaching and learning environment with basic needs and services, like water, electricity and sanitation (Hailombe, 2011), and a safe and secure environment with trust, respect and co-operation among stakeholders (Heystek, 2014), will support quality education.
In addition, Hailombe (2011) alleges that schools that provide food and care for their learners’ well-being, like schools under the Namibian School Feeding Programme (NSFP) in Namibia, effectively support the provision of quality education. Tshabalala (2013) moreover affirms that schools with responsible and accountable SMTs are also on the right path of providing quality education to their learners.
Therefore, to support quality education, rural school board members together with their SMTs need to recommend skilful and experienced teachers (Hailombe, 2011). Zhang (2010) states that school board members must recommend competent teachers who specialise in the subjects they are teaching, and who are always punctual, dedicated and well prepared for the next lessons as they are the key aspects of quality education. Similarly, the MoE (2008) highlights that school board members must recommend that staff members who have genuine aims and objectives that are in support of quality education be appointed. According to Shinana (2013), educational stakeholders believe that when learners’ results are excellent, it shows the success of their school board members. When the school’s performance is outstanding, especially in grades 10 and 12, it proves the value, success and achievement of its school board members and the SMT.
2.2.2 Decentralisation of school governance
Decentralisation of school governance refers to the relocation and shifting of educational responsibilities from a national level to the provision of educational services to the public at regional and local level (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2009). Decentralisation of school governance increases the democratic participation of all educational stakeholders in their local schools’ governance and administration (Botha, 2013).
One of the aims of the decentralisation of school governance, as indicated by Botha (2013), is to improve accountability and the effective management of human and physical resources in schools
to support quality education. Therefore, the shifting of school governance and administration from the central national educational offices to school level give all stakeholders a better role to play in the provision of quality education at their local schools (Barrera-Ossorio, Fasih, Patrinos, & Santibanez, 2009).
Hailombe (2011) perceives decentralisation of school governance as a gateway to various policy ends in the education system. Some of these policies are like the shift from autocratic school governance to democratic school governance: improvement of service delivery by shifting central decision-making to democratic, collective decision-making.
According to Botha (2013), the decentralisation of school governance enhances accountability and empowers all stakeholders to participate in all school programmes in support of quality education. Botha also adds that the decentralisation of school governance shifted the system of delegating decision-making power from a central office of the government to the school level. Barrera-Ossorio et al. (2009) stress that the decentralisation of school governance advanced an active involvement of all the stakeholders who were excluded from their schools’ decision-making processes in the past. In Namibia, the decentralisation of school governance approach was established to give regional and local authorities as well as all stakeholders at the grassroots level of decision-making the authority to democratically take part in matters that concern their local schools (MoE, 2008).
In addition, Kandumbu (2005) argues that the decentralisation of school governance policy in Namibia has given rise to and has increased the interest in effective school governance, which supports quality education. Therefore, the establishment of school boards in Namibian state schools shows a significant decentralisation of power in Namibian school governance (Hailombe, 2011). It offers the power of speech in decision-making to the local stakeholders, who know more about their local education systems and its needs than the central policy-makers at national level (Khama, 2014).
Finally, Beckmann and Prinsloo (2009) claim that the decentralisation of school governance is supporting quality education in schools, hence improving the educational results and enhancing stakeholders’ participation in school activities. Moreover, the utilisation of the NEA as a policy document and a guideline in school governance plays a vital role in inspiring effective communication, high standard of equal participation, and power-sharing in education (MoE, 2005b, 2008).
2.2.3 Democratisation of school governance
Democracy at school level refers to a system of school governance in which school board members are elected according to the ministerial policy initiatives to represent other stakeholders in decision-making cornering their local schools (MoE, 2005b). Sinalumbu (2013) defines democratic school governance as a system of leadership in which all stakeholders at school level elect their own school board members who will represent them in decision-making by means of a democratic election.
Moreover, Khama (2014) refers democratisation of school governance in the Namibian perception to the boarder responsibility of developing school policies and rules in which schools should be governed, organised and controlled. The MoE (2008) refers to democratisation of school governance as the practice of guaranteeing that schools are performing their outmost functions to achieve their practical goals of providing quality education to the learners and the community they serve. Therefore, all school board members have a crucial role to play in the governance and development of their local schools to support quality education.
In Figure 2.1, Sinalumbu (2013) acknowledges seven essential aspects that promote democracy in active school governance, which include representation, participation, rights, accountability, open discussion, common good, and fairness.
Figure 2.1: Aspects that promote democracy in active school governance (Sinalumbu, 2013)
School governance Representation Participation Rights Accountability Open discussion Common good Fairness
Representation: parents, teachers and learners choose who should represent them in the school board at a particular school by electing individuals, and elected school board members make decisions on behalf of other stakeholders (NEA, 2001). According to Joubert and Bray (2007), in a democratic school, governance problems and disagreements are resolved through discussions, and collective decisions are taken in a democratic way, which requires trust, respect and co-operation among school board members.
Participation refers to the procedure in which all stakeholders are required to participate equally and actively in their local schools’ decisions for the benefit of their children (Mncube, 2009). According to Xaba (2011), this implies that all school board members are expected to participate equally and actively in whatever decisions are to be taken, and to give feedback to other stakeholders.
Rights: the NEA (2001) empowers school board members with rights and responsibilities to run their local schools, to participate in all school programmes at all levels of education, and to make decisions on behalf of other stakeholders. Furthermore, Sinalumbu (2013) claims that school board members are not only given the rights and responsibilities, but they are legally empowered to actively participate in all school discussions and decision-making processes.
Accountability: when schools are governed in a democratic way and all school board members are equally participating in school programmes on behalf of other stakeholders, then they (i.e. the school board members) are accountable for the provision of quality education at their local schools (Xaba, 2011).
Open discussion entails that school board members exercise their democratic rights in school governance, where all members are allowed to participate, think critically, contribute constructively and act responsibly (Joubert & Bray, 2007). In school boards, decisions are taken openly and in a collective way, where all members are involved and able to give their inputs and air their views in one way or another insofar as the interest of the learners to acquire quality education (Chikoko, 2008).
Common good: in schools, all issues that need to be discussed and decisions to be taken require all school board members to reach one common and collective decision through consensus (Crouch & Winkler, 2008). In addition, it is imperative for school board members to discuss all concerns that hold back the provision of quality education and to come up with a collective resolution (Xaba, 2011).
Fairness requires all school board members to be treated fairly and to be allowed to participate freely and express their views fairly during discussion so that they can feel respected (NEA, 2001). Khama (2014) suggests that school board members must avoid conflict, such as quarrelling, gossiping, squabbling, back-biting and power-struggling among themselves to be able to support quality education.
The MoE (2008) indicates that the practice of democratisation of school governance in Namibia is influenced by the empowerment of local stakeholders to govern their local schools and to make recommendations to the national authorities for the final decision to be taken. Steyn and Wolhuter (2008) suggest that schools must be governed democratically with equal and general participation in decision-making and clear responsibility of those who are governing them.
In addition, according to the MoE (2005b), democratic school governance policy requires school principals who are able to work with the school board chairperson and other school board members. Furthermore, it needs school board members who can work in a democratic and participatory way to build a good relationship and to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of quality education to all (Pomuti & Weber, 2012).
2.3
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN NAMIBIA
2.3.1 School governance in the pre-democratic era in Namibia
The formal education ideal in Namibia was first brought around by European missionaries (Shanyanana, 2011). At that time, there were very few formal schools and there were no school board members to govern them. European missionaries taught native people how to write their names, and how to count and to do simple calculations (Thomberry, 2004). They also taught them how to read the Bible and trained priests as their main priority was to evangelise and spread the gospel easily worldwide (Shanyanana, 2011).
These European missionaries’ education was later utilised by German colonists, who took over the Namibian territory for 30 years from 1884 to 1915 as a method of colonisation and racial discrimination against the Namibians. Shanyanana (2011) further indicates that when the German colonialists arrived in Namibia, they first introduced the education in 1909 for white settlers only. Later, they introduced education to the native people in racial and ethnical groups.
During the German colonial regime, the education system was segregated. The education training and resources were provided according to the learners’ racial and ethnic status. Schools were not at the same standard when it came to the provision of funds and assets (Angula & Lewis, 1997). The
German colonists came up with a well-designed teaching and learning curriculum that contained insufficient skills. Their purpose was to make sure that native people would continue to be manual workers and to work for the white minority (Amukungo, 1993).
However, when the South African regime took over the territory from German colonists from 1915 to 1990, they continued with their discriminating education system. Afterwards, the South African regime introduced the Bantu education system, which was specifically for black people. The Bantu education system was different from whites’ education system in terms of the educational training syllabi and policies (Shanyanana, 2011).
Hailombe (2011) indicates that during the colonial regime, the Namibian education system was critically unfair and privileges were given to some citizens, particularly whites and coloureds. In contrast, the black Namibians, who were the majority in the country, received a lower grade basic education. Salia-Bao (1991) coincides that there were differences in the Namibian education system in different areas during the colonial era. Salia-Bao (1991) further claims that schools were not treated equally when it came to the provision of human and physical resources, like expenditure, teaching and learning syllabi, and learners’ access to further studies.
According to Amukungo (1993), school governance, teachers’ training opportunities, and salary scales and job opportunities within the education system were completely different. Shanyanana (2011) affirms that during the colonial time, all stakeholders were not involved in decision-making processes concerning their schools. Black people were not regarded as partners in education and were not involved in policy development concerning their local schools’ governance. Therefore, Namibian school governance before independence was regarded as an undemocratic and non-participatory model, which was centralised, autocratic and irresponsible to all stakeholders regardless of their racial or ethnic status (Angula & Lewis, 1997). This was also revealed by Botha and Makoelle (2012), who highlight that in a centralised school governance system, overall school administration tasks are carried out by school principals, who report straight to the high authority. This implies that school principals in the Namibian education system before independence were regarded as administrators with limited power and control over their school programmes, finances, and human and physical resources.
In addition, before independence, school governance concentrated more on central rules and policies, which were limited to the hands of school principals and teachers at school level. Parents and learners had no say in their school programmes, needs and infrastructure (Angula & Lewis, 1997). Moreover, Khama (2014) agrees that during the apartheid era, schools were only managed
by school principals, who had to report straight to the government. Other stakeholders such as teachers, parents and learners, were not involved in their local school governance.
According to Angula and Lewis (1997), there was no legal establishment of equal participation of all stakeholders in the Namibian education system’s school governance. Stakeholders’ participation was restricted to parents who had limited power and were restricted to advice on school programmes. Parents and teachers were not involved in issues recommended and approved by the government, like schools’ infrastructure development and the construction of classrooms in rural areas (Khama, 2014). Therefore, Namibian people regarded pre-democratic school governance as having been personalised or modified by the colonists to fit their aims and objectives, since it did not contribute to the Namibians’ economic, social or cultural needs (Shanyanana, 2011).
2.3.2 School governance in Namibia in a democratic era
When the wind of change blew in Namibia in 1990, after it gained its independence from the South African regime (Shanyanana, 2011), the country inherited an educational system which had many inequalities, discrimination and racism, especially when it came to school governance (Amukugo, 1993). At the start of Namibian independence, the education system and school governance were still completely in favour of the white minority, then blacks and coloureds who were the majority (Angula & Lewis, 1997).
After independence, Namibia continued with an old colonial education system where parents were not involved in school matters (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Most people at rural areas suffered the consequences, such as a lack of access to quality education (Chikoko, 2008). Moreover, the biggest challenge that faced Namibia soon after independence was the designation of a new education system whereby quality education turned out to be a cornerstone. Therefore, one of the newly elected government’s major concerns was to decentralise the whole Namibian education system, and to bring about a democratic, participative and collaborative school governance model (Angula & Lewis, 1997). So, the Namibian government made sure that all stakeholders in education were involved in all decisions related to the improvement of a new education system (NEA, 2001). The new government also reinforced democratic participatory structures at all levels of education, such as school boards, Learner Representative Councils (LRCs), teachers’ unions and regional education forums.
After independence, the Namibian educational policies prioritised the provision of educated, skilled human resources to support quality education as well as economic growth and equitable social development in the country (MoE, 2005b). According to Marope (2005), education is a social and crucial means, which can significantly contribute to the national development of the country.
Therefore, well-educated, well trained and civilised people tend to contribute effectively to the education and socio-economic development of their country.
After 11 years of independence, the Namibian government introduced its own Education Act (NEA, 16 of 2001). According to the Namibian constitution (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1990), the NEA is used as an instrument to address the past imbalances and practices in school governance. These two fundamental policy documents (i.e. NEA and the Namibian Constitution) facilitate the establishment of school boards in Namibia, which were officially introduced in 2003 (Niitembu, 2006). Furthermore, the NEA is employed to enhance and support quality education through the establishment of democratic structures of equal and active participation of all stakeholders in school governance (Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture [MBESC], 2004).
2.3.3 The legal framework of school boards in Namibia
According to Quan-Baffour (2006), a school board is a philosophy that arises from a need of the community’s involvement in school governance. James, Brammer, Fertig, James, and Jones (2011) define a school board as a crucial element in the education system when it comes to school governance. The MoE (2008) also defines a school board as a local board that functions within the legal framework of the NEA. School boards have a vital role to play in guaranteeing that schools are managed effectively and provide quality education to all learners.
The establishment of school boards in Namibia intended to inspire, motivate and stimulate all stakeholders at a grassroots level to support the provision of quality education. Taylor (2009) and Hooge and Honingh (2014) allude that the establishment of a school board motivates an average of the democratisation of school governance by shifting power to all stakeholders at their school levels. School board members are therefore expected to play a vital role in supporting quality education (Hooge & Honingh, 2014). Moreover, they are required to assist school principals and teachers in their professional or curricular activities in support of quality education at their respective schools (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2009). If school board members and SMTs respectively stick to their governing and management responsibilities (MoE, 2005b), it will absolutely increase the degree to which school board members will be able to support quality education in the school they are governing (Heystek, 2010).
2.3.4 The election of school board members
Section 19 of the NEA (2001) emphasises that school board members’ election must be conducted democratically by a presiding officer, chosen by the PS. That presiding officer can be a staff member who is not working at the specific school. In the rural areas of the Ohangwena Region, school board
elections are facilitated by Cluster Centre Principals (CCPs). In addition, whenever school board elections are conducted at cluster centre schools, they are facilitated by Inspectors of Education (IoEs).
Furthermore, the NEA stipulates that school board elections must be conducted in a democratic way by use of secret ballots. It also permits schools to conduct school board elections by a show of hands where necessary, especially in rural areas where some parents are undereducated. In addition, the NEA highlights that elected school board members must elect a chairperson of the school board, a secretary and a treasurer among its members.
2.3.5 The composition of school boards
In Namibia, school boards are comprised of school principals, teachers and parents. However, at schools that are offering grades 8 to 12, learners are also members of the school board. The number of school board members in Namibian schools consist of the prescribed number of not less than five members and not more than 13 members. The number of school board members differ from one school to another, depending on the enrolment of learners at the school in that specific year. Section 19 of the NEA stipulates that parents must make up most school board members and that the chairperson of the school board must be a parent. This implies that parents and school communities have a crucial role to play in the provision of quality education at their local school (NEA, 2001).
Botha (2013) asserts that schools are no longer functioning in isolation, but within the community they serve, since they belong to the community. Therefore, parents and the community must be fully involved in the process of providing quality education.
Table 2.1: Table to determine the number of school board members
Number of learners at school Number of school board members
Less than 100 5
100 to 199 7
200 to 399 9
400 to 599 11
600 and more 13
Table 2.1 determines the number of school board members to be elected at a certain school according to learners’ enrolment at that specific school for that specific year (NEA, 2001) (Regulation 3(4)).
2.3.6
School board members’ terms in the office
In terms of section 18 of the NEA, a term of school board members in the office is three years for teachers and parents, while learners only have one year. It further emphasises that a school board member can only serve on one school board at a time, notwithstanding the situation that he/she may have children in more than one school. Also, school board members can be re-elected; however, a chairperson of the school board, who must be a parent, shall not exceed three years in office (NEA, 2001).
2.3.7 Powers and functions of school board members
Section 16(2) of the NEA (2001) highlights the powers and functions of school board members as follows:
to develop the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school;
to advise the school’s management on the extramural curriculum of the school;
to advise the regional director of education on the educational needs and curriculum of the school;
to make recommendations to the PS on the appointment of teachers and other staff members at the school;
to determine and to allow the reasonable use of school facilities for community purposes; to consider any case of misconduct by a learner or staff member of the school to ensure that
such misconduct is properly investigated;
to make recommendations to the PS on an appropriate disciplinary measure to be taken regarding serious misconduct of a learner; and
to exercise other powers or to perform other duties and functions as may be authorised or imposed by or under the NEA.
2.3.8
Learners’ participation in school governance in Namibia
According to Shekupakela-Nelulu (2008), the issue of learners’ participation in school governance was introduced in the Namibian education system before independence while Namibia was under the South African regime. After independence, the NEA (2001) improved the participation of learners, who are the primary beneficiaries of education, to be partners in school governance. This was done through an introduction of decentralisation of democratic school governance through the establishment of school boards in all state schools.
